49. The petition file does not contain any information indicating that the present matter may be pending another international proceeding or that it has been previously decided by the Inter-American Commission. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that the exceptions established in Article 46(1)(d) and in Article 47(d) of the American Convention are not applicable. 4. Characterization of the alleged violations 50. Article 47(b) of the Convention establishes that a petition that does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of human rights is not admissible. The Commission’s examination of the matter at this stage of the proceedings is not aimed at establishing whether a violation of rights has been committed, but rather at establishing whether the events in question, if proven, could tend to demonstrate the violation of a protected right. This is necessarily a preliminary, o prima facie, analysis and does not imply a prejudgment on the merits of the matter. 51. In this case, the petitioners argue that the State did not conduct an effective investigation into the murder of Mr. Palma and that therefore his right to life was not guaranteed. In addition, the insufficient diligence on the part of judicial authorities to clarify the events adequately and the unreasonable time period in which they acted signified hardships in terms of the humane treatment of the family members and was also a violation of the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protections. 52. For its part, the State asserts that the facts of the case do not characterize any infringement of the provisions of the American Convention since the presumed disappearance of Mr. Palma was resolved through the guilty verdict reached on January 19, 2001 and upheld on June 26, 2002 against Freddy Contreras, Lenin Ordóñez, and Stanley Vicente, private actors and the perpetrators of the kidnapping and murder of Mr. Palma. 53. Keeping in mind the foregoing arguments, and the State’s argument that the Commission is not a fourth instance court, the Commission observes that while the protection offered by the bodies of the inter-American system of human rights is of a subsidiary or complementary nature, as the very preamble of the American Convention on Human Rights implies,13 the Commission does have the competence to declare a petition admissible and make a decision about its merits when the petition refers to a domestic ruling that has allegedly been issued outside of due process or in violation of any other right guaranteed by the Convention.14 54. The Commission notes, in the present case, that in spite of the fact that a guilty verdict was issued against three people for having been the direct perpetrators of the detention and death of Mr. Palma, there are allegations of deficiencies in terms of the Ecuadorian State’s responsibility to investigate, the length of time it took for the investigation to be conducted, and the partial impunity that resulted from the process. As a result, the Commission believes that the facts and allegations presented could characterize a violation of the right to life and person liberty of Marco Bienvenido Palma as well as the family members’ rights to humane treatment, a fair trial, and judicial protection and, therefore, concludes that it is competent to examine the grievances presented by the petitioners on the alleged violation of Articles4(1), 5(1), 7(6), 8(1), and 25(1) of the American Convention, in accordance with Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Palma and his family. 13 IACHR, Report No. 92/08, Petition 12.305, Inadmissibility, Julio César Recabarren and María Lidia Callejos, Argentina October 31, 2008, para. 44; and Report No. 122/01, Petition 0015/00, Inadmissibility, Wilma Rosa Posadas, Argentina, October 10, 2001, para. 10. 14 IACHR, Report No. 39/99, Case 11.673, Santiago Marzioni, Argentina, March 11, 1999, para. 24.